RE: [Nmock-general] Strict vs Lenient mode for mock objects

[Nick R. <nic...@ya...>]

I personally can see the benefit of the lenient mode, but IMO it should have
to be "switched on", and be in switched off mode by default.  This is
similar to my comments about the Strict property.  However, if there was
documentation with NMock, which was accompanied with a few use scenarios
(showing the use of Strict), such problems I witnessed may not have
happened.

Thanks,

nick.robinson
site : www.fromconcept.co.uk
blog : www.fromconcept.co.uk/weblog.aspx

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmo...@li...
> [mailto:nmo...@li...]On Behalf Of Steve
> Freeman
> Sent: 07 January 2004 23:13
> To: JMock Dev
> Cc: nmo...@li...
> Subject: [Nmock-general] Strict vs Lenient mode for mock objects
>
>
> Hello mockistas.  We (Steve & Nat) have just spent a semi-productive
> session designing an API for "lenient mode" mock objects.  In lenient
> mode a mock will return default values from unexpected invocations
> instead of throwing a test failure.
>
> But then we decided that it was a bad idea and deleted all the code.
>
> Lenient mode can mask errors and make errors fail slow instead of fast.
> In fact, Nick Robinson has just complained about this on the nmock list.
> There is some mechanism underneath to support default values for people
> who want to pop in their own default stub, but this is not yet exposed
> properly.
>
> What do people think about lenient mode?
>
> Cheers,
> 	Nat & Steve.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
> Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
> advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
> Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html
> _______________________________________________
> Nmock-general mailing list
> Nmo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general
>